(Chapter 1) Reap-Reason explains "Esse-Monism."

[ReapReason]

What is Esse-Monism?

Firstly; its not my religion. I am baptized Catholic, but i am not currently attending Church (and when i do its very sporadic) for various reasons that i don’t intend to explain here. Lets just say that i am not a Practicing-Catholic.

Secondly; Its a philosophical position that i believe to be true, and i am prepared to defend it rationally…

Lets start by giving a short quote on Monism.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monism

“Monism …argues that the variety of existing things in the universe are reducible to one substance or reality and therefore the fundamental character of the universe is unity.”

Although this idea can safely be interpreted as applying to the Universe alone and not to all that possibly exists, lets make this more interesting by saying that this idea is based essentially on the concept that the Universe is actually all there is as far as existence is concerned. In that respect i will interpret this as meaning that the universe (existence) is one united thing (there is no duality in its essential or existential nature).

In respect of that interpretation, my position as an Esse-Monist means that i profess the belief that while an Ontological-Monism is wrong, i still think that Monism can be applied to “existence”, as an act, so long as existence is something that is intrinsically distinct from that which is a “contingent essence” (Particular kinds of nature that have a beginning)

If you haven’t noticed, my position is based upon the distinction between esse and essence as described by Aquinas.

aquinasonline.com/Topics/deente4.html

"*Whatever is extraneous to the concept of an essence or quiddity comes to it from beyond itself, and forms a composition with the essence since no essence can be understood without those things which are its parts. On the other hand, every essence or quiddity can be understood without its act of existing being understood. I can understand what a man or phoenix is, and yet not know whether or not it exists in reality. Therefore, it is evident that the act of existing is other than essence or quiddity.

This is true, unless, perhaps, there is something whose quiddity is its very act of existing. This thing would have to be unique and primary, since it would be impossible for anything to be multiplied except by the addition of some difference, as the nature genus is multiplied into species; or by a form being received in diverse matters, as the nature species is multiplied in different individuals; or by one being absolute, and the other being received in something. For example, if there were a certain “separated” heat it would be distinct, in virtue of its very separation, from the heat which is not separated.*"

I cannot be certain that my interpretation is consistent with Aquinas. However, consistency with Aquinas is not my goal, but rather the truth is my goal. If i happen to be consistent, it is only because the truth happens to be consistent with Aquinas.

Essentially; what i believe is that Existence as an act is only one thing. There are not multiple acts of existence. There is no duality in existence as an act. There is only one intrinsic act of reality; and any nature which begins to have an act, is not real by its own nature, but is instead real because existence as a distinct holistic nature on to itself is making particular kinds of nature real by sharing its one act of reality with a potential object. Otherwise a contingent nature would never be real since you cannot get an act of reality out of nothing.

Thus Esse-Monism not only allows for a distinction between esse and essence, but claims that such a distinction is so absolute that anything which begins to be real is not its own act of reality. What we have here is the idea that the “isness” of a nature is not the nature itself, at least when speaking of something which begins to be real. Any thing that begins to be real is only distinct in reference to its particular kind of nature insofar as its act of reality is concerned.

So Esse-Monism argues,

1. There is a nature that is intrinsically Existence.
2. There is only one act of Existence
3. There is no duality in the act of Existence.
4. There is only duality in reference to “natures” or “essences” which begin to be real.
5. Essences that begin to be real are not intrinsically the act of Existence.

Hence the term Esse-Monism so as to distinguish itself from pure Monism.

 

[ReapReason]

A Rational defense of Esse-Monism.

In reality, we see change. We see things that were only potential become actual. We see new natures that are truly distinct and different in comparison to other natures. For example there is clearly an objective distinction between the nature of a rock and a biological organism.

So, it is evident that things become real in different ways that were not real before.

If we admit that there are natures that have become actual, has a beginning, or is in a continuous state of becoming (continuously actualizing more potentiality in some way shape or form), then we must also admit that existence is not intrinsic to its nature. This is to say that existence or actuality is not the same thing as its nature. If existence were intrinsic to its nature, then it would not have a beginning in time. It would simply exist without any change at all. It would certainly not exist in time (If you agree that time/change is essentially by definition the actualization of potential), since it would make no sense to speak of it potentially existing or potentially becoming more real. All that which is intrinsic to its nature would exist absolutely in its nature, and would not fail to exist or begin to exist since Existence is its nature.

Simply put; potential things or things that were once only potential, do not have to exist, and they do not exist by virtue of there own nature.

The Universe (physical reality) taken as a whole is something that changes (it evolves) and so it is by definition a sequence of actualized potential. Therefore it too cannot be its own act of reality, since it is essentially a long chain of beginnings. Therefore physical reality (space-time and energy) is not intrinsically real.

But if that is the case (which it is), then changing things, natures which have a beginning, must be made real and sustained in reality. Since these things or natures are not there own act of reality, they must be given an act of reality that does not belong to it their natures.

There must be a being or nature that is intrinsically the act of existence in so far its nature is the embodiment of what reality fundamentally is.

There can be only one intrinsic act of existence, because if there were two acts of existence they would both lack that which is intrinsic to the natural act of existence in so far as they would lack each other. Thus they would be imperfectly existing since that which is true intrinsic reality lacks nothing of what reality essentially is. It is never separate from what reality is. Only that which is imperfect can lack something. That which imperfectly exists can fail to exist. Only that which perfectly exists can be said to be intrinsically Existence. Therefore a true intrinsic act of reality or actuality cannot truly be divided into separate entities with distinct natures. Hence there is no dual existences.

Therefore Esse-monism is true since there can only be one act of existence; anything else is merely sustained in reality by that act.

 

[ManRay]

Explain what you mean by “existence is an act”. Axiomatically defined -* Existence is*. It is a self sufficient primary. It is irreducible and unalterable.

 

[ReapReason]

Explain what you mean by “existence is an act”. Axiomatically defined -* Existence is*. It is a self sufficient primary. It is irreducible and unalterable.

I say this in order to emphasize the distinction between a potential essence and actuality itself. I am also talking about existence in its most general sense, as an act, rather than as a particular nature among other natures. But yes, you are correct; it is a self sufficient primary. It is irreducible and unalterable.

 

[ManRay]

It seems that you are describing the law of identity which is also axiomatic. I’m having trouble understanding how this relates to your belief system or what your worldview actually is? Potential is just a dictionary definition positing a future identity. It has no bearing on reality in that sense. An olive has the potential to become olive oil…but an olive isn’t olive oil. Olive oil would still exhibit some of the characteristics(nature) of an olive, but it would logically fail under the axiom of identity to continue to be called just an olive…for it would now acquire descriptors that would identify it as something else.

 

[ReapReason]

It seems that you are describing the law of identity which is also axiomatic.

Not sure what you mean here; in what sense or context are you talking about the law of identity and how does it relate to what i have said. You keep saying axiomatic, suggesting that the rational principles by which i form rational arguments are unprovable in the sense that i cannot know that they truly reflect reality. Is it your opinion that we cannot achieve metaphysical knowledge?

I’m having trouble understanding how this relates to your belief system or what your worldview actually is? Potential is just a dictionary definition positing a future identity. It has no bearing on reality in that sense.

It isn’t just a dictionary definition. Things that were not actual, cleanly become actual.

 

[ManRay]

Not sure what you mean here; in what sense or context are you talking about the law of identity and how does it relate to what i have said. You keep saying axiomatic, suggesting that the rational principles by which i form rational arguments are unprovable in the sense that i cannot know that they truly reflect reality. Is it your opinion that we cannot achieve metaphysical knowledge?

They ARE improvable in the sense that they are prime, and the only source of knowledge and reality. They don’t need to be proven. You can’t argue against them without contradiction. You can’t say ‘I’ don’t exist without first acknowledging the “i”. Anyway It seems that you are describing these various axioms, but putting your own twist on them. Why don’t we start out with the conclusion. What is it that you actually believe? What is your worldview, as far as a god goes? That may help me.

It isn’t just a dictionary definition. Things that were not actual, cleanly become actual.

I would say that the definition uses the important words: May, possible, or capable. It doesn’t infer that it necessarily will. An olive MAY become olive oil. It isn’t necessary to the nature of an olive to become olive oil.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

A Rational defense of Esse-Monism.

In reality, we see change. We see things that were only potential become actual. We see new natures that are truly distinct and different in comparison to other natures. For example there is clearly an objective distinction between the nature of a rock and a biological organism.

So, it is evident that things become real in different ways that were not real before.

If we admit that there are natures that have become actual, has a beginning, or is in a continuous state of becoming (continuously actualizing more potentiality in some way shape or form), then we must also admit that existence is not intrinsic to its nature. This is to say that existence or actuality is not the same thing as its nature. If existence were intrinsic to its nature, then it would not have a beginning in time. It would simply exist without any change at all. It would certainly not exist in time (If you agree that time/change is essentially by definition the actualization of potential), since it would make no sense to speak of it potentially existing or potentially becoming more real. All that which is intrinsic to its nature would exist absolutely in its nature, and would not fail to exist or begin to exist since Existence is its nature.

Simply put; potential things or things that were once only potential, do not have to exist, and they do not exist by virtue of there own nature.

The Universe (physical reality) taken as a whole is something that changes (it evolves) and so it is by definition a sequence of actualized potential. Therefore it too cannot be its own act of reality, since it is essentially a long chain of beginnings. Therefore physical reality (space-time and energy) is not intrinsically real.

But if that is the case (which it is), then changing things, natures which have a beginning, must be made real and sustained in reality. Since these things or natures are not there own act of reality, they must be given an act of reality that does not belong to it their natures.

There must be a being or nature that is intrinsically the act of existence in so far its nature is the embodiment of what reality fundamentally is.

There can be only one intrinsic act of existence, because if there were two acts of existence they would both lack that which is intrinsic to the natural act of existence in so far as they would lack each other. Thus they would be imperfectly existing since that which is true intrinsic reality lacks nothing of what reality essentially is. It is never separate from what reality is. Only that which is imperfect can lack something. That which imperfectly exists can fail to exist. Only that which perfectly exists can be said to be intrinsically Existence. Therefore a true intrinsic act of reality or actuality cannot truly be divided into separate entities with distinct natures. Hence there is no dual existences.

Therefore Esse-monism is true since there can only be one act of existence; anything else is merely sustained in reality by that act.

Very clever but still pantheism. I won’t try to talk you out of it since the effort has been tried, so good luck where you are going. But it won’t be Catholicism, you can’t be Catholic entertaining or accepting as true things which are contrary to Catholic doctrine.

 

[ReapReason]

Very clever but still pantheism. I won’t try to talk you out of it since the effort has been tried, so good luck where you are going. But it won’t be Catholicism, you can’t be Catholic entertaining or accepting as true things which are contrary to Catholic doctrine.

Its not clear to me at all that i am accepting as true that which is contrary to Catholicism. I am not a pantheist. A pantheist makes no distinction between “esse and essence”. You are clearly in error. In fact my argument is in keeping with Catholic principles and respects the distinction between creation and necessary existence. But feel free to assert error as you please.

 

[ReapReason]

I would say that the definition uses the important words: May, possible, or capable. It doesn’t infer that it necessarily will. An olive MAY become olive oil. It isn’t necessary to the nature of an olive to become olive oil.

I did not say that a thing necessarily takes on a particular kind of potential in terms of form. I only said that natures have come into existence that were at some point only potential natures.

 

[ManRay]

Can you explain to me your worldview then…What exactly is it that you believe in relation to god? I’m all curious now.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

I was just reading Bonaventure. He makes distinction between particular being or constrained being, and analogous being. But the main thing is, rather than just philosophical speculation, it is a practical focus of meditation.

Chapter V

1. The first manner at first and principally fixes [defigit] its power of sight upon ‘being’ itself, saying, that He who is is the first Name of God.
2. Primus modus primo et principaliter defigit aspectum in ipsum esse, dicens, quod qui est primum nomen Dei.
3. Wanting therefore to contemplate the invisible things of God in regard to His unity of essence, let (the mind) first fix its power of sight upon ‘being’ itself and see, that ‘being’ itself to this extent is in itself most certain, because it cannot be thought not to be, because most pure ‘being’ itself does not occur except in full flight from ‘not-being’, just as nothing is also in full flight from ‘being’.
4. Volens igitur contemplari Dei invisibilia quoad essentiae unitatem primo defigat aspectum in ipsum esse et videat, ipsum esse adeo in se certissimum, quod non potest cogitari non esse, quia ipsum esse purissimum non occurrit nisi in plena fuga non-esse, sicut et nihil in plena fuga esse.

… But this is not particular ‘being’, which . . .is constrained ‘being’ [esse arctatum], because it is commingled with potency, nor « analogous ‘being’ [esse analogum], because it has the least actuality, for the reason that it scarcely is. It follows therefore, that that ‘being’ is the Divine ‘Being’.

… Sed hoc non est esse particulare, quod . . .est esse arctatum, quia permixtum est cum potentia, nec esse analogum, quia minime habet de actu, eo quod minime est. Restat igitur, quod illud esse est esse divinum.

in 6. Whence if “God” names the primary, eternal, most simple, most actual, most perfect ‘being’; it is impossible that It is thought to not to be, nor to be but the Only One. Listen therefore, O Israel, God thy God is one. — If you see this in the pure simplicity of (your) mind, you will in some wise [aliqualiter] be filled with the brightening of eternal light.
…If you wonder at these things with a pure mind, you shall be filled with a greater light, while you see further, that It is for that reason last, because it is first.
in. 6. Unde si Deus nominat esse primarium, aeternum, simplicissimum, actualissimum, perfectissimum; impossibile est, ipsum cogitari non esse, nec esse nisi unum solum. Audi, igitur, Israel, Deus tuus Deus unus est.7 — Si hoc vides in pura mentis simplicitate, aliqualiter perfunderis aeternae lucis illustratione…Si haec pura mente miraris, maiore luce perfunderis, dum ulterius vides, quia ideo est novissimum, quia primum.

franciscan-archive.org/bonaventura/opera/bon05295.html

Read also the Scholium at the end

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Its not clear to me at all that i am accepting as true that which is contrary to Catholicism. I am not a pantheist. A pantheist makes no distinction between “esse and essence”. You are clearly in error. In fact my argument is in keeping with Catholic principles and respects the distinction between creation and necessary existence. But feel free to assert error as you please.

The problem is that you say that there is only one esse, the world esse. So where is God? In your philosophy, he can only be a part of this esse or is this esse. That is Pantheism.

 

[ReapReason]

The problem is that you say that there is only one esse

Its only a problem if you make no distinction between esse and potential essence.

the world esse.

What do you mean by the world esse?

So where is God?

A good Thomist shouldn’t find it too difficult to know where God is.

he can only be a part of this esse or is this esse.

I have not argued whether God is or is not this esse or is only a part.

That is Pantheism.

Pantheists make no distinction between esse and essence. I am not a pantheist.

 

[empther]

Linusthe2nd wrote:

The problem is that you say that there is only one esse, the world esse. So where is God? In your philosophy, he can only be a part of this esse or is this esse. That is Pantheism.

I agree with Linus one hundred percent.

ReapReason replied to Linus that pantheists don’t distinguish between esse and essence, whatever the heck that means,

but what ReapReason doesn’t do it distinguish between an eternal God, outside time, unchangeable, “pre-existing” the universe “when” there was no universe, and that therefore the universe is not any part of God whatsoever in any way, because God has no parts.

In other words, ReapReason is a pantheist.

 

[ReapReason]

but what ReapReason doesn’t do it distinguish between an eternal God, outside time, unchangeable, “pre-existing” the universe “when” there was no universe, and that therefore the universe is not any part of God whatsoever in any way, because God has no parts.

In other words, ReapReason is a pantheist.

instead of throwing out false accusations. I suggest you read the argument again, since none of what you and Linus have said suggests that you have read it properly, but rather you have jumped to false conclusions instead.

The fact that you don’t even know what the “esse and essence” distinction is, suggests to me and any real Thomist philosopher that you have nothing more than a very basic and superficial understanding of Aquinas’ philosophy. The “esse and essence” distinction is the most important principle that distinguishes Aquinas from Aristotle.

Thanks for clarifying that for me; I did not want to accuse you of being absolutely ignorant of real Thomism without any evidence.

Ps.

God is eternal and distinct from the universe; but he does not exist before the universe (pre-exist). God’s existence is simultaneous with the beginning of the universe and the end of it. Just helping you out there in case you embarrass yourself in front of a real Thomist again.

 

[empther]

ReapReason blabbered: :hey_bud:

Ps.

God is eternal and distinct from the universe; but he does not exist before the universe :bigyikes: (pre-exist). God’s existence is simultaneous with the beginning of the universe and the end of it. :bigyikes: Just helping you out there in case you embarrass yourself in front of a real Thomist again.

:egyptian:

That’s one of the most confused messes I’ve seen in a long time.
Thanks for the laughs, Reap.

 

[ReapReason]

ReapReason blabbered: :hey_bud:

:egyptian:

That’s one of the most confused messes I’ve seen in a long time.
Thanks for the laughs, Reap.

Its evident to me now that you are just trolling and have no interested whatsoever in having a rational discussion with anyone. Shame on you. You are not even capable of making a real rebuttal. You just pretend as if you have something useful to say.

You are not a Thomist, since you don’t even understand what the esse and essence distinction is. End of story.

There is nothing confused about what I said. The confusion exists only in your head.
What I have presented in this thread is just a fact of metaphysical logic, like it or not.

It is senseless to speak of a non-physical timeless being as existing before anything. God is simultaneous with everything.
God is logically prior to the universe, in the sense of necessity and contingency; but he does not actually precede the universe in the sense of time. It is irrational to say that there was a time before the universe existed, in which God existed. Hence the only rational thing to say is that God is simultaneous with all time.

So the joke is on you.

 

[empther]

It is senseless to speak of a non-physical timeless being as existing before anything. God is simultaneous with everything. :bigyikes: :bigyikes: :bigyikes:
God is logically prior to the universe, in the sense of necessity and contingency; but he does not actually precede the universe in the sense of time. It is irrational to say that there was a time before the universe existed, in which God existed. Hence the only rational thing to say is that God is simultaneous with all time.

So the joke is on you.

I should be inducted into the Catholic Theology Hall of Fame.
I got you to say what this nonsense theory is all about.

There is no spiritual non-physical God.
God cannot exist without the universe, or can’t help creating the universe, or some nonsense like that.
Since there was no time before the universe, neither was there a God, although it has been explained a thousand times on these forums that God is outside time, changeless, and having no beginning, which is what eternal means.

You come here on a Catholic website with a confused theory that nobody here wants,
to correct the erroneous thinking of a billion Catholics,
and you even claim your junk theory is in agreement with Aquinas.

Don’t expect to be taken seriously, Reap. We’re not fools. We’ve had the truth for two thousand years.

Write a wikipedia article on Esse-Monism. I’m sure millions of people will be thrilled to read it. :

 

[ReapReason]

I should be inducted into the Catholic Theology Hall of Fame.
I got you to say what this nonsense theory is all about.

There is no spiritual non-physical God.
God cannot exist without the universe, or can’t help creating the universe, or some nonsense like that.

Since there was no time before the universe, neither was there a God, although it has been explained a thousand times on these forums that God is outside time, changeless, and having no beginning, which is what eternal means.

Now you are resorting to distortion. I have said none of these things in the way you intend to imply them here. I said it is meaningless to speak of a being existing in a time before time itself. The cause of time is therefore necessarily non-physical, and therefore this cause necessarily exists simultaneously with all time; rather than before it like a physical object. You just don’t understand the rational implications of Gods nature in relation to the universe. Like i said, you have a simple rudimentary understanding of metaphysics in general and the metaphysics of Gods nature in particular.

You come here on a Catholic website with a confused theory that nobody here wants,
to correct the erroneous thinking of a billion Catholics,

I never came to correct anything. I wanted to share my philosophical views, and what i get in return is a panicking paranoid delusional person trying to put me down at every step.

and you even claim your junk theory is in agreement with Aquinas.

It is in agreement with the metaphysics of Aquinas. But you wouldn’t know that because you didn’t even know about the real distinction between “esse and essence”. You’re not a Thomist philosopher of any caliber whatsoever. If i am a fool, it is only because i expected an intelligent debate on these forums.

Don’t expect to be taken seriously, Reap. We’re not fools.

I bet a lot of the Catholics on here aren’t fools. Catholics like Al Moritz for one. One of a few very intelligent thinkers on this forum. You on the other hand embody negativity and maliciousness, not to mention a lack of intelligence. I wonder what that makes you?..

We’ve had the truth for two thousand years.

I don’t disagree. However your understanding of that truth is clearly flawed and not worth listening to.

Write a wikipedia article on Esse-Monism. I’m sure millions of people will be thrilled to read it. :

I bet a few honest genuine people who don’t have a chip on their shoulder, and have a genuine interest in philosophy, would be interested in such an article.

They certainly wouldn’t be interested in yours.